 | | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) As a buyer/seller on ebay, Amazon and Bricklink I want the admins to protect me from individuals which don't respect the ToS. If a chap on ebay has a feedback rating of "-2" as a buyer on ebay would you bid on his auctions? Scott A (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
Wow. 2500+ words! Is an executive summery available? (...) IMHO this whole thing should have stayed private. Scott A PS Was cross posting to .general really req'd? (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Hmm. So if I think that the LUGNET ToS is unfair and has room for improvement, should I just engage in "something like civil disobedience" to make my point? Think about it. (...) That is your view. But if you search for words like "malicious", (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) And some of them not true, but hilariously funny, nonetheless. (...) Normally I'd probably agree, but in this situation I kinda feel like I've been "included" on a field trip to the local minefield... "No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) -snip- (...) Well, I don't think its fair you make it seem thats where he stopped. He did change the wording, as requested to what he felt was within the ToS. I know that fact is not in question, but I think its only fair to put up all of his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Tom, do me a favor - copy this over, paste in in your word editor, print it up and post it above your monitor: I am not, and have not told anybody to shut up. I have not, and am not telling anybody to not have or voice their opinion. Can you (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think if he violated the TOS, he deserves what he received. No one is above the law/TOS. I have seen his B/L shop before, and was un-impressed by some of the things put in the descriptions. If someone is that busy, maybe they shouldn't run a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) I would say that it would be more productive to ask Dan to state his side of the story, rather than try to convince everyone else to shut up. The only way we will get Dan's side of the story is if *Dan speaks up*. If he does not, BL's (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Chris - I have said countless times in the last few days in direct regards to this situation - I am not trying to tell anybody they can not have, or voice thier opinion. But when you base your opinion on false information that some people (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
|
(...) I think that either combinations are evenly good if the parents are loving and caring. Their sex/color/origin/color of hair/toothpaste they use is irrelevant and not important IMO. I'll grant you that diversity is better, but since we are all (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I think you're probably speaking more generally here anyhow, but I haven't really got anything special to say. (...) I just got back from my doctor's appointment and a grad class. Right now all I can think about is how I'd like a world with no (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) And until Dan speaks up, we'll never know. Personally, *with what I currently have to go on*, Dan's reaction was overblown, and Larry's attempt to meet ToS was earnest. Only Dan can prove that wrong. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Why? What is so wrong with trying to convince Dan that the action was overblown? If we all gave up an just took what was given to us, that wouldn't say much for us. -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual FAQ Home (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Mark, What are you trying to gain by the repetition of this idea? We get it. You think that we don't have a right to an opinion. I happen to disagree. If you're merely pointing out that we don't have the power to change anything over at BL, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But see, you are still acting like it was this ONE event that got him banned. It was not - I thought you understood this. Dan very clearly said that there were problems in his past that factored into it. So he was not banned for this one (in (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) This is like saying that your driver license should be revoked if you violate even the most insignifcant traffic law or that you should be sentenced to life in prison for jaywalking. -Orion (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
This thread seems to have engendered a lot of discussion. Not all of it is for the long term good of the community, I fear, which is regrettable. I'm hopeful that this post might slow some of it down. I have asked Dan privately to be reinstated. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !!
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But prudent to what end? Because Larry desperately values his BL store? Or maybe because he wanted to bring the subject to light, aggresively if need be? My guess is that for Larry, it's the principle of the thing, not whether or not his store (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But in joining BrickLink, the member acknowledges that interpretations of the TOS are ultimately up to BrickLink, not the member. The member should certainly attempt to clarify confusing language, but that doesn't mean the member should be (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No, not really. Its possible that he believes that the TOS of Lugnet is fair and has no room for improvement at the moment, but that BL has an issue to deal with that might involve changing the TOS. (...) Hmm ? ~Kevin Blocksidge (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Because it's bad for the stability of Bricklink to revoke membership over minor violations of the TOS. To clarify "minor"; in this case, when the violation of the TOS could be a matter of interpretation. Also I think it is worth pointing out, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) IMO BrickLink *should* pull the membership of any member who, in BrickLink's opinion, violates the TOS, and any second-chances or probationary periods are entirely up to BrickLink. People who enter into contracts of membership explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Thank you. I'm trying to stay civil, although it's hard, some comments that some people are making, seem rather inflammitory. (Note - Trying is not always suceeding.) Clarification - I don't find your above statement inflammitory, it was other (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Oh, I totally agree-- I just don't think Dan tried as hard as he should have in this case. (...) Nobody, really. If Dan thinks the "right way" is to ban everyone whose name gets drawn out of a hat, who's to say that's the "wrong way"? I think (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) I saw that - and I read and make sure I understand the posts before I reply. Your OTHER points did not match that statment, but I do give you credit for making that statment. And I am not saying how great I think Dan is.. I AM saying he did (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Just because BrickLink has the right to pull Lar's membership, doesn't mean BrickLink should. It's my opinion that Admin shouldn't have handled this situation this way and I'm letting him know that I think he should have handled it better. And (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Given that Tim wants to line Larry up for martyrdom: NO. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Uhhh... has anyone in an official position actually said the revised wording has ceased to be a ToS violation ? IMHO (and IANAL) any attempt to keep a lot active, but not purchaseable, runs afoul of the ToS from two directions... 1) There is a (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Is that not rather ironic given his willingness to enforce the ToS on this site? (...) hmm. Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Well actually, if you bothered to read all the posts, instead of running around shouting from the rooftops about how great Dan is and he can make all the bad decisions he wants, then you might have seen that I recanted on that point already. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) It does not matter what Tim thinks is inside or outside the ToS. It is not his call to make. Obviously, Dan thought it was not inline with the ToS - and thats really the only view that means anything here - right? Mark P LoB (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) The following posts shed light on this: (URL) on these, I don't believe that Larry's correction was earnest, but rather calculating. My guess (yes, it's a guess)is that it was the phrase "Until perpetual stock is implemented," that was the (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) But do you agree that the statment "The customer is always right" is a good theme to strive for, but not law? Anybody (IMHO) that thinks that that statment is true must have never worked with customers IRL. (...) Who is to say what the right (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Yes, read his very words: "Dan informed me yesterday that I needed to remove that wording as it's a ToS violation. I responded with a suggestion for a different approach." Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops.
|
|
(...) Can you please define what you mean by "earnest"? Are you saying his "earnest attempt" put him inside the ToS? (...) You or I would have deleted the whole of the text and shrugged the matter off. Larry tried to play it smart and it backfired. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Another flaw Tim - Dan DOES NOT see Larry as a "good-faith" anything! He proved that in not only his words, but his actions. What you think Larry is, or not is is 100% pointless! You need to understand that. The only person view that matters (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) "run his business like a crazed dictator" Where did you pull that from? He banned what he saw to be a problem member. That does NOT make him a crazed dictator. To even imply that is is acting like one is about as wrong as you can possibly get. (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) Why? It has been said many times why. (URL) as others pointed out this part of the BL ToS: (URL) Breach. -snip- We also reserve the right to terminate your membership and your data and deny you access to any of the site's features at any time (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) If Lar were afforded a second (or third, or whatever) chance to come into compliance and if that chance were not similiarly extended to others who had violated the TOS two (or three, or whatever) times, then Lar would be receiving preferential (...) (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: suspended Bricklink shops
|
|
(...) No -- it is not undisputed that the reason he was banned was a TOS violation. He broke it, was corrected, and made an earnest attempt to comply. After his attempt to comply he was banned without recourse. -Tim (20 years ago, 23-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
